YINLU BICOL CORPORATION V.

TRANS ASIA
[G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015, BERSAMIN, J.:]

TOPIC: PERSONS – EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS – REPEAL OF LAWS

DOCTRINE: Rights pertaining to mining patents issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902
and existing prior to November 15, 1935 are vested rights that cannot be impaired.

FACTS:
1. This case involves 13 mining claims over the area located in Barrio Larap, Municipality of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte, a portion of which was owned and mined by Philippine Iron
Mines, Inc. (PIMI), which ceased operations in 1975 due to financial losses.
a. PIMI’s portion (known as the PIMI Larap Mines) was sold in a foreclosure sale to the
Manila Banking Corporation (MBC) and Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
(PCIB, later Banco De Oro, or BDO).
2. The Government then opened the area for exploration.
a. Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Development Corporation (Trans-Asia) then explored the
area from 1986 onwards.
i. In 1996, it entered into an operating agreement with Philex Mining Corporation
over the area, their agreement being duly registered by the Mining Recorder
Section of Regional Office No. V of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR).
3. 1997: Trans-Asia filed an application for the approval of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
(MPSA) over the area in that Regional Office of the DENR, through the Mines and Geosciences
Bureau (MGB), in Daraga, Albay.
a. The application, which was amended in 1999, was granted on July 28, 2007 under MPSA
No. 252-2007-V, by which Trans-Asia was given the exclusive right to explore, develop
and utilize the mineral deposits in the portion of the mineral lands.
4. August 31 2007: Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation (Yinlu) informed the DENR by letter that it
had acquired the mining patents of PIMI from MBC/BDO by way of a deed of absolute sale,
stating that the areas covered by its mining patents were within the areas of Trans-Asia’s
MPSA
5. September 14, 2007: Trans-Asia informed Yinlu by letter that it would commence exploration
works in Yinlu’s areas pursuant to the MPSA, and requested Yinlu to allow its personnel to
access the areas for the works to be undertaken.
a. Yinlu replied that Trans-Asia could proceed with its exploration works on its own
private property in the Calambayungan area, not in the areas covered by its (Yinlu)
mining patents.
6. TransAsia found out that the registration of its MPSA had been put on hold because of Yinlu’s
request to register the deed of absolute sale in its favor.
7. DENR Secretary directed MGB Regional Office V to verify the validity of the mining patents of
Yinlu.
a. MGB Regional Office V informed the Office of the DENR Secretary that there was no
record on file showing the existence of the mining patents of Yinlu. Accordingly, the
parties were required to submit their respective position papers
8. DENR Sec Atienza ordered the amendment of Trans-Asia’s MPSA by excluding therefrom the
mineral lands covered by Yinlu’s mining patents
a. DENR Sec. Jose L. Atienza, Jr in his order found that the mining patents had been issued
to PIMI in 1930 as evidenced by and indicated in PIMI’s certificates of title submitted by
Yinlu; and that the patents were validly transferred to and were now owned by Yinlu.
 b. He rejected Trans-Asia’s argument that Yinlu’s patents had no effect and were deemed
abandoned because Yinlu had failed to register them pursuant to Section 101 of
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended.

c. He refuted Trans-Asia’s contention that there was a continuing requirement under the
Philippine Bill of 1902 for the mining patent holder to undertake improvements in
order to have the patents subsist, and that Yinlu failed to perform its obligation to
register and to undertake the improvement, observing that the requirement was not an
absolute imposition.
i. He noted that the suspension of PIMI’s operation in 1974 due to financial losses
and the foreclosure of its mortgaged properties by the creditor banks
(MBC/PCIB) constituted force majeure that justified PIMI’s failure in 1974 to
comply with the registration requirement under P.D. No. 463;
ii. that the Philippine Bill of 1902, which was the basis for issuing the patents,
allowed the private ownership of minerals, rendering the minerals covered by
the patents to be segregated from the public domain and be considered private
property; and
iii. that the Regalian doctrine, under which the State owned all natural resources,
was adopted only by the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions
9. Office of the President affirmed the DENR Sec’s Order.
a. Under the Philippine Constitution, there is an absolute prohibition against alienation of
natural resources. Mining locations may only be subject to concession or lease.
i. The only exception is where a location of a mining claim was perfected prior to
November 15, 1935, when the government under the 1935 Constitution was
inaugurated, and according to the laws existing at that time a valid location of a
mining claim segregated the area from the public domain, and the locator is
entitled to a grant of the beneficial ownership of the claim and the right to a
patent therefore.
b. The right of the locator to the mining patent is a vested right, and the Constitution
recognizes such right as an exception to the prohibition against alienation of natural
resources.
i. The right of the appellee as the beneficial owner of the subject mining patents in
this case, therefore, is superior to the claims of appellant
ii. The existence of the TCT’s in the name of appellee further bolsters the existence
of the mining patents. Under PD 1529, also known as the Property Registration
Decree, once a title is cleared of all claims or where none exists, the ownership
over the real property covered by the Torrens title becomes conclusive and
indefeasible even as against the government.
10. CA: It agreed with the DENR Secretary and the OP that Yinlu held mining patents over the
disputed mining areas, but ruled that Yinlu was required to register the patents under PD No.
463 in order for the patents to be recognized in its favor.
a. It found that Yinlu and its predecessors-in-interest did not register the patents pursuant
to PD No. 463; hence, the patents lapsed and had no more effect
11. Yinlu asserts the following:
a. The mining patents of Yinlu were registered pursuant to Act No. 496 (Land Registration
Act of 1902) in relation to the Philippine Bill of 1902 (Act of Congress of July 1 , 1902), the
governing law on the registration of mineral patents, were valid, existing and
indefeasible.
i. Section 21 of the Philippine Bill of 1902: allowed citizens of the United States
and of the Philippine Islands to explore, occupy and purchase mineral lands
ii. Section 27 of the Philippine Bill of 1902: after the exploration and claim of the
mineral land, the owner of the claim and of the mineral patents was entitled to
all the minerals found in the area subject of the claim
 iii. its registered mineral patents, being valid and existing, could not be defeated by
adverse, open and notorious possession and prescription;
b. substantive rights over mineral claims perfected under the Philippine Bill of 1902
subsisted despite the changes of the Philippine Constitution and of the mining laws
i. Constitution could not impair vested rights;
ii. Section 100 and Section 101 of PD No. 463 would impair its vested rights under
its mineral patents if said provisions were applied to it;
iii. Section 99 of PD No. 463 expressly prohibited the application of Section 100
and Section 101 to vested rights.

ISSUE:

Whether Yinlu’s mining patents constitute vested rights and could not be disregarded.

RULING: YES
1. A mining patent pertains to a title granted by the government for the said mining claim.
2. Under the 1935 Constitution, which took effect on November 15 1935, the alienation of
natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, was expressly
prohibited.
a. The natural resources being referred therein included mineral lands of public
domain, but not mineral lands that at the time the 1935 Constitution took effect
no longer formed part of the public domain.
b. Prohibition against the alienation of natural resources did not apply to a
mining claim or patent existing prior to November 15, 1935.
c. McDaniel v. Apacible: A mining claim perfected under the law is property in the
highest sense, which may be sold and conveyed and will pass by descent. It has
the effect of a grant (patent) by the United States of the right of present and
exclusive possession of the lands located.
d. The owner of a perfected valid appropriation of public mineral lands is entitled
to the exclusive possession and enjoyment against everyone, including the
Government itself. Where there is a valid and perfected location of a mining
claim, the area becomes segregated from the public domain and the property of
the locator.
e. A valid and subsisting location of mineral land, made and kept up in accordance
with the provisions of the statutes of the United States, has the effect of a grant
by the United States of the present and exclusive possession of the lands located,
and this exclusive right of possession and enjoyment continues during the entire
life of the location. There is no provision for, nor suggestion of, a prior
termination thereof.
3. Even without a patent, the possessory right of a qualified locator after discovery of
minerals upon the claim is a property right in the fullest sense, unaffected by the fact
that the paramount title to the land is in the Government, and it is capable of transfer by
conveyance, inheritance, or devise.
a. the mining claim under consideration no longer formed part of the public
domain when the provisions of Article XII of the Constitution became
effective, it does not come within the prohibition against the alienation of
natural resources; and the petitioner has the right to a patent therefor upon
compliance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law.
 4. Although Section 100 and Section 101 of PD No. 463 require registration and annual
work obligations, Section 99 of PD No. 463 nevertheless expressly provides that the
provisions of PD No. 463 shall not apply if their application will impair vested rights
under other mining laws.

Section 99. Non-impairment of Vested or Acquired Substantive Rights. Changes made and new
provisions and rules laid down by this Decree which may prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights in accordance with order mining laws previously in force shall have no
retroactive effect. Provided, That the provisions of this Decree which are procedural in nature
shall prevail.

a. A right is vested when the right to enjoyment has become the property of some
particular person or persons as a present interest.
i. It is “the privilege to enjoy property legally vested, to enforce contracts,
and enjoy the rights of property conferred by existing law” or “some right
or interest in property which has become fixed and established and is no
longer open to doubt or controversy”
b. The due process clause prohibits the annihilation of vested rights.  ‘A state may not
impair vested rights by legislative enactment, by the enactment or by the subsequent
repeal of a municipal ordinance, or by a change in the constitution of the State,
except in a legitimate exercise of the police power’
c. It has been observed that, generally, the term “vested right” expresses the concept of
present fixed interest, which in right reason and natural justice should be protected
against arbitrary State action, or an innately  just an  imperative  right which an
enlightened  free  society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights,
cannot deny
d. Republic v. Court of Appeals: that mining rights acquired under the Philippine Bill of
1902 and prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution were vested rights that
could not be impaired even by the Government.
e. In the present case: the mining patents of Yinlu were issued pursuant to the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and were subsisting prior to the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution. Consequently, Yinlu and its predecessors-in-interest had acquired
vested rights in the disputed mineral lands that could not and should not be
impaired even in light of their past failure to comply with the requirement of
registration and annual work obligations.